nwnfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:Throwing axe
Automatically mighty? Is that true about throwing axes being mighty? I never ever took them because they weighed so much, I never saw any point in taking them. // Brick Thrower 13:36, 15 January 2006 (PST) *Yes, it's true. They're unlimited mighty. -- Alec Usticke 14:05, 15 January 2006 (PST) Ability used for attack bonus Are they still Dex based for AB calculation or Str based? (same question for Darts) Bromium 14:41, 5 June 2007 (PDT) *Ignoring Zen Archery, attack rolls for ranged weapons are always modified by dexterity. --The Krit 08:11, 29 June 2007 (PDT) :*I dont believe this is correct, in testing with a monk using Shurikens--a similar weapon--with 10 strength and 16 dexterity, my AB had dropped considerably. Can anyone verify this? 12.75.199.177 04:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC) ::*Your AB dropped compared to what? Anyway, I did check it again, and both shurikens and throwing axes still use the dexterity bonus — not strength — to modify the attack roll. --The Krit 04:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Weight note Since there are several ways in which the weight of throwing axes may be addressed, I was thinking to add a bit about magic bags to the current note. * The weight of this weapon (50lbs for a stack of fifty) reduces its viability for characters with low or moderate strength and other weighty equipment, depending on the availability of magic bags or similar items. But perhaps it would be better to simplify the note by splitting it into two notes: One about weight, clarifying that a whole stack will weigh 50 lbs; and another about encumbrance, noting that the weight poses an encumbrance hazard. Something like * A full stack of fifty throwing axes weighs 50lbs, the heaviest standard weapon and as heavy as any standard item a character may equip. * Weight makes encumbrance a consideration for many characters of low or moderate strength, potentially addressed by strength buffs or the use of weight-reducing containers (see magic bag or bag of holding). or maybe not mentioning how to deal with the extra weight * A full stack of fifty throwing axes weighs 50lbs, the heaviest standard weapon and as heavy as any standard item a character may equip. * Weight makes encumbrance a consideration for many characters of low or moderate strength. Any thoughts? - MrZork (talk) 03:29, November 5, 2014 (UTC) :* Full plate is 50 lbs., a tower shield is 45. I'm not seeing a reason to mark those with magic bags, even though I might often carry a spare armor or shield to swap around for different item properties. The main difference with throwing axes (and all throwing weapons) is that they are exhaustible. Thus an extra set of throwing axes will be my only set of throwing axes when I use up the first set. This also makes throwing weapons the most expensive weapons if item properties (like an AB bonus for DR penetration) are desired. So throwing axes rank at the top for both price and weight, two significant drawbacks. Yet is either drawback worth significant mention given that other items have one of these drawbacks? WhiZard (talk) 23:47, November 5, 2014 (UTC) :** As you mention, a distinction with throwing axes is that they are consumables. Combine that with along with a smaller stack size than arrows, bolts, etc. and a 4 APR toon will consume them at a rate of a whole stack in just under 13 rounds, unhasted. So, typically, a character using them as a primary ranged weapon will want to carry several stacks of them. No special note is needed for items like plate armor because their article shows their total weights and players already expect them to be heavy, which isn't always the case with consumable ammo or thrown weapons. :** I am fine not mentioning magic bags. I only added that because the extant note discusses circumstances in which throwing axes are viable and magic bags are appropriate to mention, if we are discussing those circumstances. - MrZork (talk) 21:53, November 6, 2014 (UTC) :::* Huh? The maximum stack size has nothing to do with encumbrance (unless you are counting inventory dimensions consumed in magic bags). If I needed to make exactly 200 ranged attacks, I would bring 200 throwing axes. It does not matter whether the stack size was 1, 50, or 99; I would still need to support that 200 pounds of weight from the throwing axes. The 1 pound number (weapon weight) tells me each attack requires 1 pound support. The 50 pound per stack tells me that 50 attacks require 50 pounds of support. I think the 1 pound is a lot more straightforward. WhiZard (talk) 01:02, November 7, 2014 (UTC) :::** I wasn't trying to say that stack size relates directly to encumbrance, just that the small stack size means a toon will carry more stacks. Because of that, even 50 lbs isn't really the appropriate weight to compare to other items, since a toon using throwing axes as his ranged weapon will have to carry several stacks. An axe-throwing character is likely to have more raw weight in axes in his inventory than any other item, even if he has more than one set of armor. But, even a moderately strong toon can carry lots of axes in a single bag of holding, so axes may be viable for him, assuming he can keep a single stack out of a bag without being encumbered. ::::: Anyway, as I said, I don't care about mentioning magic bags unless we were sticking with the idea of enumerating the circumstances in which throwing axes were not viable for PCs, due to weight. - MrZork (talk) 01:59, November 7, 2014 (UTC) :* I can see the value in a weight note because someone could easily overlook how hefty a stack of 1-pound items can become. I wouldn't bother with general methods for dealing with the weight, though; that detracts from the focus of the article. If I were rewriting the note again, I might go for something like "The weight of a full stack (50 lbs) often incurs encumbrance concerns." provided the encumbered article was expanded to mention weight-reducing containers. --The Krit (talk) 02:14, November 6, 2014 (UTC) :** I think that would do it. I will change the note and look at the encumbered article. - MrZork (talk) 21:53, November 6, 2014 (UTC)